I had this crazy idea just before I fell asleep a few days ago. What if… what if consumable art and media was proportionally priced?

What if music CDs had a sliding scale of cost, from $5 through to $20, depending on your current net disposable income? What if a student could buy a video game for $10, while an affluent worker must pay $50 for the same product?

I’ll just get this out of the way at the start: is this a completely crazy idea?

I’ve been churning it over for a few days and nights now and I fail to see an obvious flaw.

The implementation wouldn’t be easy. You have to stop students selling their copies to affluent workers. You would have to keep track of everyone’s disposable income.

But these are problems with workable solutions! You might not like exposing your disposable income, but you could always make the system opt-in: don’t expose your income and you simply pay the full price. Your ‘price band’ could easily be stored on your credit card or similar: you wouldn’t have to tell the store clerk how much you earn. As for selling your cheap copy to someone in a higher price band… we’re now into the domain where this system would truly excel: the digital, online domain.

Yes, I’m talking about digital rights management: a dirty term with an awful reputation. But hang in there. You would have to expose your identity, and thus your price band, while online. The online shop — Steam, Amazon, etc. — would have to know who’s using the computer to make the purchase. There lots of single sign-on systems available (Facebook, OpenID, etc.) that could be used for this purpose. Again, the only additional info you are exposing is your net disposable income.

As with all digital distribution methods, there are loopholes. Yes, MP3s will still be pirated, but that’s not the point — this system isn’t about destroying piracy, it’s about creating a new sales market. iTunes and Steam have proven without doubt that people want to pay for the music and games that they enjoy. A student with no money isn’t going to save up to buy a $20 album when they can pirate it for free. If a student can buy the same album for $5, surely everyone wins?

Now replace ‘student’ with ‘anyone not living in a Western country’. A vast percentage of worldwide piracy occurs outside of Western nations. In Malaysia you can buy a $50 video game, or feed yourself for a month. What if you could buy the game and feed yourself at the same time?

There are more advantages too! Proportionally priced art and media is the ideal hook. The poor students of today will become the rich workers of tomorrow. Hook them on $5 for an album and they won’t baulk at spending $20 when they have the money. With your disposable income exposed, either via your online identity or your credit card, there is also the opportunity to price anything using a sliding scale: Tesco or Walmart could offer cheaper bread and pasta to those with lower incomes; EasyJet could offer 10 cheap plane tickets for students on every flight — richer people could be charged more…

Despite what it looks like, this isn’t actually a system for squeezing more money out of the consumer. This is an enabling system. Intellectual property should not be arbitrarily priced. A book or CD or DVD should not have the same price across the world just because the words and music have the same inherent value. I won’t go as far as to say that humans have a right to art, media and culture but I do think they should be accessible to everyone: that’s what this system sets out to accomplish.

9 Comments

This rather implies the idea that life is somehow “fair” and everyone needs to be able to buy anything they want (not need). CDs are a luxury item. Music is, to a great extent, already accessible – you can listen to the radio, watch Top of the Pops (or its latest equivalent), or buy a single (rather than a full album). Buying a CD is not the only accessibility option. So perhaps radios should be subsidized. If you’re in Malaysia and have to choose between feeding yourself and a video game, frankly I don’t think you’d give a toss about the video game. Some books I could see an exception made, educational for example. But you’ll find books do cost different amounts in different countries. Intellectual property is not arbritrary priced, it’s priced based on supply and demand.

I don’t believe there’s a “right” for everyone to buy non-necessity products. When did CDs and video games become something we all need and deserve? (or original art in our homes, for that matter) Every generation has had to live with the fact that when we’re young we can’t have everything we want – we learn to wait or save. That’s called growing up. This young generation has just grown up with the assumption that they deserve it all, because stealing it is an easy option.

I don’t appreciate your flash judgement against the younger generation. Plenty of people are working hard and saving. Plenty of people in my generation and younger are trying or are making their own way. You’re right that CDs and video games aren’t something that we all need, but feeding yourself and surviving isn’t what is considered LIVING. Maybe living shouldn’t be centered around consumption, really, but if you take this concept and maybe make it applicable to food, or something else like prescriptions, then there will still be someone complaining about giving handouts.
The problem is that the distribution of wealth isn’t based on who works hardest or who deserves things the most. The distribution of wealth is based on who is considered privileged in society based on class, race, and sex. Things aren’t equal across the board, haven’t been equal across the board throughout history, and that means that there is an assumption that people that aren’t considered worthy in terms of their race, class, gender, etc. aren’t considered worthy enough to have wants because their needs aren’t filled. There are plenty of poor who are trying their hardest to get out of it; maybe they’d like to buy a CD for their kid’s birthday, instead of toilet paper or some other necessity, to give them some sense of normalcy when they are surrounded by peers in better living situations.

Though, I can’t reconcile the idea that the same good or service is worth different amounts to different people within the same market… But like you suggest here, another problem calls for another viable solution…! Sadly I think this means restructuring entire markets. A talk for another time.

Art is a good place to explore this idea because it’s creators are open to new possibilities. In fact, it’s probably part of their job as an artist to think outside of the box. Maybe it’s time to think outside of the market as well.

Also, how was the birthday? Was there cake? And more importantly, was the cake a lie?